I was thinking about the story reported in the media this week of the man who killed the teacher Philip Lawrence not being deported to Italy. It might first be worth declaring a personal interest here – I used to be quite good friends with one of Philip Lawrence’s daughters (before he was killed), so this isn’t merely an academic exercise, but it does maybe reinforce the need to try and be objective about it.
I can see that there are reasons it might be preferable to deport him, but I am also struck with the fact that whilst he holds an Italian passport he hasn’t actually lived there since he was 6 years old – and has been in prison since he was 15. Sending someone back to a country that they have not been to since they were a young child seems curious to me.
Somehow this brought case to mind of a man who was deported to the UK from Canada back in 2000 (I have no idea why this was squirreled away in my mind…) and it’s interesting to look at the story and how people reacted to that. If my maths is right he was nine years old when he went to Canada. He then committed a horrific murder, served a long sentence and on its completion was deported to Italy where he had no links at all. So he will be in an unknown country (can he even speak Italian?), have no job, no family ties (as his family is in the UK) and presumably there will be no form of supervision because he did not commit the offence in Italy. Does that sound reasonable?
The other thing is that the Human Rights Act has been cited as the villain in all of this, but it is actually a piece of EU law that the UK voluntary signed up to that has meant that this ruling was made. It’s not about whether the killer or the victims’ family have the greater human rights, the issue arose because the UK signed up to a piece of EU legislation that it implemented last year which means that reinforces the right to freedom of movement within the EU – and therefore if an EU citizen commits a crime in another country and has been resident there prior to the offence that country then has to demonstrate the person is a continuing risk upon release in order to have a strong enough case to deport them. That has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act – and it strikes me that in the times that we now live, we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the Human Rights Act - because if we do, one day we may look back and wish we had not been so willing to give away something that could equally have protected each of us in times of need.
Whilst this particular case is not about human rights, let me leave you with a quote I have used before on human rights which might give pause for thought on whether we should dismiss the Human Rights Act so easily. It is from Amnesty International Secretary, Irene Khan:
“Human rights are for the best of us and the worst of us, for the guilty as well as the innocent. By failing to protect the rights of those who may be guilty, governments endanger the rights of those who are innocent, and put all of us at risk.”
4 comments:
Taking an cold view - the young man commited a terrible crime, was caught sentenced and has completed that punishment. I can understand why Mrs Lawrence is expressing her opinions but it can't be right for her views to over ride the justice system. We can't become vigilantes and hand out our own punishments.
So.. what is the purpose of prison then? I *had* thought that it was about rehabilitation nowadays. If he has served his sentence, does he then deserve more punishment by being deported?
I don't know anything about the story.. But I can understand the feelings of a grieving family. However, justice is supposed to be impartial. It is very difficult to make sound judgements like this if you have been personally affected by something..
I don't really know anything about this particular case but here in Australia we've had something similar with Robert Jovicic. He came to Aus at the age of two and never gained citizenship and was, by all accounts and the lengthy list of criminal offences (mostly theft, all related to drug addiction), a bad 'un. So the government decided to deport him.
The odd thing was that, although he was born in France he was deported to Serbia - where his parents had come from. Of course he new nobody there (or at least no-one who wanted to know him), didn't speak the language, had no citizenship there, and no skills or qualifications that would help.
All this blew up in the Government's face when he was found to be camping on the Australian embassy's steps in Belgrade. In winter.
Eventually he was allowed back into Australia and is under a 2 year visa (although still is officially stateless). But the point that came out of this I feel was the responsibility of the nation to and for the people it produces. Be they citizens or not.
In the UK case and the Aus case the people who committed the crimes are definitely undesirable but are also a product of the society. Whether you like it or not people like that are part of our societies and we have to be responsible for them - to help them recover, if at all possible, and to control their behaviour if necessary.
Deportation is a cop out, it's saying 'we made this mess but we'd like someone else to deal with it now please'.
Spudgy - I totally agree with you. Justice has to be about more than one person's view. Isn't justice meant to be blind?
Lemonpillows - well quite. If prison is meant to rehabilitate then at the end surely you have served your sentence. the judge (I think) could have ordered that Philip Lawrence's killer be deported at the end of the sentence, but he didn't so that wasn't part of the judges ruling. If the judgment was bad then that should be dealt with (through the appeal courts etc) but you can't change the rules based on an individual case. I have a lot of sympathy for the Lawrence family - particularly having known some of them, but I don't think what has been reported in the idea is the answer.
Fishboy - Thanks for stopping by. An interesting parallel with Australia there and facinating that in soem ways the Australian givernment backed down on their original ruling. Here I feel that sometimes the politicians are too swayed by the headlines they want (or don't want) and end up making bad decisions without proper thought for the consequence. Perhaps we're the same the whole world over??
Post a Comment